Hyderabad High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMTNAL PETITTON Nos.l52 AND 5696 0F 2025 COMMONORDER Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar. learncd counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.l, 2 & 4 and Mrs. Shalini Saxen4 leamed counsel representing Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalfofthe respondents.

2. Criminal Petition No.l52 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.l and 2 under Section - 528 of the tsharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), ro quash the proceedings in C.C. No.7169 of 2024 pending on rhe file of the tV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, while Criminal petition No.5696 of 2025 is filed by accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid C.C.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in the aforesaid C.C. The of1-ences alteged against them are under Sections - lTlB read with lTlE and 1gg read with 109 of IPC.,

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Amberpet police Station, Hyderabad, the 2 KI,,J Crt.P. No.152 & 5696 of2025 Police have rcgistered a case in Crime No.333 of 2024 against the petitioners herein and another for the aforesaid off-ences.

5. As per the report given by respondent No.2, dated I I .05 .2024 ro the police, the allegations levelled againsr rhe petitioners herein are as followS: i) While respondent No.2 was performing his duty at Vishal Mark Check Post along with SST-2C Team for vehicle checking, one two-wheeler bearing registration No.TS 04_EZ_363 I (l{onda Shine- Black Colour) camc from Uppal towards Amberpet. When he stopped him and checked his vehicle, the complainant fbund Rs.1,90,000/- in his vehicle,s tank cover and also found thc voter list of NTR Nagar, Saroomagar along with pamphlets of Chevella Lok Sabha Constituency Contestant - accused No.4. ii) When the complainant asked that person, he revealed his details as Mr. M. Murati (accused No.l). While the complainant asked about the money, accused No.l told that he is teaching in Chemistry Deparrment Faculty at Geethanjali Engineering Coltegc, Cheryala and his colleague - Mr. Sridhar (accused No.2) gave that money and the voter list of NTR Nagaq Saroornagar. ) J KI,J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of202i iii) Mr. Ravinder Reddy, Chairman of the said College and own brother of accused No.4 who is shown as accused No.3 in FIR, told him to distribute that money to the voters mentioned in the said voter list and asked them to vote for accused No.4. Therefore, the complainant in the presence of SST-2C in-charge seized the said money, voter list and pamphlets. iv) The said acts of the peiitioners are in violation of Moclel Code of Conduct (MCC) and accordingly requested the police to take action against the petitioners as per [aw.

6. On receipt of the aforesaid report, the police, Saifabad Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime.

7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 herein as LW. l, Mr. Jeevan Reddy, SST-2 C-Team and Mr. Balakrishna. HC g377 of Amberpet P.S., eye-witnesses, as LWs.2 and 3. panch witnesses for seizure of money as LW.4 and LW.5. t_W.6 is the Official who issued FIR and LW.7 is the Invesligating Officer in the aforesaid crime who'laid the charge sheet.

8. In the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.p.C., respondent No.2 reiterated the contents of the aforesaid FIR. The 4 KI,J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696of2025 statements of LWs.2 and 3 are also on the same lines. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein. However, the Investigating Officer dropped charge sheet against accused No.3. The same was taken on file as C.C. No.7169 of 2024 by learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the aforesaid olfences.

9. -fo quash the proceedings in the said C.C., the petitioners herein filed the present criminal petition contending that the contents of complaint dated 11.05.2024 and statements of LWs.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. l-here is no abetment and there is no gratification by the petitioners to any person including Voter with the object of inducing him to exercise any electoral vote in favour of anybody. The said aspects \4'ere not considered by the Investigating Officer. He did not examine any voter to prove the offence under Section - 171-8 of IPC i.e., bribery. Basing on the sLatement of respondent No.2 and statements of trvo constabtes, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners. 'fhere are no orders that were issued by any Authority and the question of violating the same by the petitioners i I 5 KL.J Crl P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 does not arise. The lnvestigating Officer and leamed Magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down under Cr.p.C. while filing charge sheet and while taking cognizance for the aforesaid offences, more particularly, Section - 188 of IpC against the petitioners. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.

10. In support of his contentions,, leamed counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. State of Telanganal, Kesineni Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.p.2. Syed Taha Arsalan v. The State of Telanganar, prabhakar v. State of Telanganaa, Sankara prabhakar v. State of Telanganas, Kishori Lal v, State of M.p.6, State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair7, M. Mohan v. StateE, Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of Madhya Pradeshe, Sharif Ahmed v. State of I 2 l . 2023 SCC Online TS 30 . 2015 SCC Online Hyd.l0l3 . MANUTTL/0'7 4/2021 . 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4397 . 2023 SCC Online TS 4400 . (2007) l0 scc 797 . (2015) 9 SCC 639 . (20 ) 3 SCC 626 . 2025 SCC Online SC 2l 5 8 \ \ 6 KL,J Crl.P. No. I52 & 5696 of2025 Uttar Pradesht0, Srikanth Chintalapati v.State of Telanganarr and E. Ravinder Reddy v. State of Telangana12. I l. Whereas, Mrs. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein. They are Faculty Members of the College run by the brother of accused No.4. Accused No.4 was contesting candidate as a Member of Parliament from Chevella Constituency. LWs.2 and 3 specifically have spoken about the role played by the petitioners in commission of offence. Cash of Rs. 1,90,000/- along with voters Iist was seized from the petitioners. There are serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners are triable issues and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. With the said submissions, she sought to dismiss the prescnt writ petitions.

12. In the light of the above, it is apt to note that Section _ 188 pf IPC which deals with 'disobedience to order dulv \ r0.202,1 scc onlinc SC 726 r'. 2023 SCC Online .l S _.1762 ''. [,4,qNu/ tLlI 02qlzo2: 7 KI,,J Crl.P. No.l52 & -5596 of2025 promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever. knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shatl, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk ol obstruction. annoyance or inj ury. to any pcrson lawftlly employed, be punished with simple impris- onment for a term which may extend to one month or with f,rne which may extend to two hundred mpees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the oflender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sullicient that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. 8 KI,J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 Illustration An order is promulgated by a pr.rblic servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a rcligious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has commiffed the oflence defined in this section."

13. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr3 white dealing with the offences under Sections - 1 88 and 283 of IPC, learned Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public mecting only at onc specified place is true, such a direotion under Scction 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Supcrintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that'the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take ..erfgnizance ofan offence under Section 188 ofCode of 'r C'iminal Petition No i l2l o12009- dccidcd on 17.09.2009 9 KLJ Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge shcet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authoriry to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal ProceCure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the tra{fic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffrc jam causcd by the road show. But, when the conduct ofthe -public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the trafhc, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable unier hdian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the r\ l0 KI,J Crl-P No.l52 & 5696 of2025 complainycharge sheet being in viotation ol Section I 95 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure, has to fail' 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this C ourt by way of this Criminal Petition."

14. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districtra relying on uu.iou, judgments inctuding N'T' Rama Raor3 and the guidelines laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Supreme Coutt in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalrs, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act' providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a teamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Ilyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Scction - 482 of Cr'P'C' It was I a,,r*/,a,U,o" *o.,rro, nrro,u. occided on 26.10.2016 't. 1t992; supp. I scc3.l5 II KL,J Crl P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l ) (a) of Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the above, prima facie, the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Further, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs.l to 3 lack the ingredients of Section - 1gg of IpC. Therefore, thc proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein.

16. Section - l71B of IPC deals with .bribery,, while Section - l71E deals with punishment for bribery, and the same is extracted as under: "S.l 718. Bribery. ( 1) Whoever: (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or 't r. t2 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 ot2025 (iD accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward lor exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribcry; Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise ol public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or oflers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification. and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall bc deemed to havc accepted the gratification as a reward." "S.17fE. Punishment for briberY Whoever commits the oflence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or *ith fine, or with both; Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only."

17. Section - 107 deals with 'abetment of a lhing', while Section - 109 of IPC deals with 'punishmcnt of abetment if the act l3 KI.J Crl-P. No.l52 & 5696 o[2025 abetted is committed in consequencc and where no express provision is made for its punishment', and the same is extracted as under: "Section 107: Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing ofa thing, who: (1) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing: or (3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." "Section 109: 'punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is commifted in consequence of the abetment. and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."

18. To attract an offence under Section - 1718 of IPC, the requirement is that he should be a person, who give or at least l4 KI,J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of 2025 offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right. by another person. There is no mention in the complaint dated 11.05.2024 of respondent No.2 and in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. and also the statements ol LWs.2and 3 that the petitioners offered the said amount as gratification to any voter with an object to induce him to exercise his franchise in favour of accuscd No.4.

19. In Kesineni Srinivasa Rao2, the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, hetd that term gratification should be understood in the perspectivc of the recipienl rather than the giver that is to say whatever has been paid by the giver should give pleasure or satisfaction to the recipient. The term gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratificatian or gratification estimable in money. It embraces all forms of gratification in the ordinary and simple meaning of term gratification. The scope of the meaning of the word gratification is thus very wide and will cover any retum which pleases for some favour done. In order to hold a person guilty of offering bribe to another person under Section l7l-B of l5 KL,J Crl P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 IPC, the giver may pay money or kind to the recipient but it must please or satisff the recipient to exercise any electoral right.

20. In the light of the above, as discussed above, in the present case, the contents of complaint dated 11.05.2024 and the statements of LWs. I to 3 lack the ingredients of offence under Section - 171B of IPC.

21. In Kishori Lal6, the Apex Court held in paragraph No.6 as under: "6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (l) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy lor the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anyhing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is l6 KI-.J Crl.P. No. t52 & 5696 of2025 committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided lor the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normallv Iinked with the proved offence."

22. In lhe present case, the contents of the complaint datcd

11.05.2024 and the statements of LWs.l to 3 lack the ingredients of Section - 107 of IPC

23. The Investigating Officer did not examine any voter or any independent witness to prove that the petitioners offered gratification to him with an object of inducing to exercise his electoral right in favour of accused No.4 by taking gratification/reward. In the absence of the same, prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 1718 of IPC is impermissible. 24 In Bhajan Lalls, the Apex Court cautioned that porver of quashing should be exercised vei sparingly and circumspection "- and thattoo in the rarest of rear cascs. While t xamining a t7 KL.J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliabitity or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercisc oi'powcrs under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., n'hich are as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima lacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable ofTence. justilying an investigalion by police officers under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the puiview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose l8 KL,J Crl P. No 152 & 5696 of2025 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence. no investigation is permitted by a police oflicer without an order ol a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ol the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or' complaint are so absurd and inherentll' improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion thar there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or thc Act concerned (under which a criminal procecding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Acl concerned, providing efficacious redress lor the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 'vVhere a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedinB is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive lor wreaking vengeance on the - / l9 Kl-.J Crl.P. No.l52 & 5696 of2025 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.r' The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.

25. As discussed above, accused Nos.l and 2 are faculry members of Geethanjali Engineering College, Cheryala, and accused No.3 is the Chairman of the said College. Accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.3. The Investigating Officer deleted the name of accused No.3 from the charge sheet. He has filed charge sheet only against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.l, 2 and 4. Accused No.4 was the contesting candidate for the Parliament Constituency from Chevella Segment. Thus, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein in the aforesaid C.C. is an abuse ofprocess of law. [t cannot go on. Thus, the proceedings in the said CC are liable to be quashed.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principte taid down in the aforesaid decision, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.7169 of 2024 pending on the file of the leamed IV Additional Chief Metropolitan 20 KL.J Crl.P. No.152 & 5696 o12025 Magistrate. Hyderabad. arc hereby quashed against the petitioners hcrcin - accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 As a sequel thereto. misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petitions shall stand closed SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To,

1. The lV Addl Chief fi/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI N NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies GR/gh M HIGH COURT DATED:1 810812025 1l-.E S ra1 6' ( ^+ o o 29 AIJB 26 7 C, o6.9 p,11 5' , , i 3+ .. I COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.152 AND 5696 of 2025" ALLOWING BOTH THE CRLPS M (